1. The King's Peace being the first law of the land, meaning that anyone going to war without the king's leave - be it against the king himself or some other lord, knight, etc. - was a rebel and traitor by default. That has interesting repercussions for Tywin dealing with the Reynes/Tarbecks, for instance - he was restoring the King's Peace there rather than breaking it, one assumes. At least that's how it would have been seen officially.

2. A lord cannot sit in judgment over another lord, leading to Cregan Stark becoming 'the Hand of the Uncrowned King' (a rather problematic title/status if you ask me - if there is no crowned king, said king cannot have a Hand, can he?). This is a very significant revelation considering that it greatly limits the power of the lords. We have long known that lords cannot make lords, but if lords cannot even try other lords, then lords paramount cannot (alone) conduct trials against other lords - i.e. also not against their own lordly bannermen and vassals. Any lord accused of a crime thus seems to have a right to be tried by the king or the Hand or other officials at court rather than another lord.

If you ask me, then this implies that the power a lord paramount has over another lord is limited to the whole land thing (i.e. rents or taxes) he is due to pay him for the land he holds as well as duties he owes to his liege as an official/representative of the king - for instance, the duties a lord owes to the Warden of the respective region. If a lord cannot really sit in judgment over another lord then no lord in Westeros actually rules over another lord in a meaningful way. Which is very significant.

3. It seems the king's person is more significant as a notary during his minority/regency than I and others have previously assumed. We see Cersei and Kevan having Tommen seal and sign various warrants, decrees, and grants, but FaB makes it more clear that those things are really necessary for such royal documents to be official and carry any binding legal power. This means that a stubborn minor king - while being technically obligated to follow the lead of his duly appointed regent(s) (especially if she was a parent or other close relative) - could actually sabotage the efforts of his own government if he were to refuse to actually fulfill his notary function. While Jaehaerys I, Aegon III, or Tommen could not issue laws, decrees, grants, etc. of their own they are able to actually refuse to seal and sign official documents - which gives them considerable power even during their minority. This also shows where Aegon III pretty much failed during the Regency, basically allowing his various regents to treat him as a pawn, always signing off on the decisions that were made in his name.

It also shows that Tommen's Regency government would quickly disintegrate if they no longer controlled the king's person - either because Tommen were dead or had fled the castle/city. Without a king to sign and seal official documents the Iron Throne could effectively no longer rule. Documents only signed by regents and Hands and other royal officials do not even carry remotely the same legal weight as documents sealed and signed by the king himself.

It also indicates that Kafkaesque appointments in a Regency government - like Marston Waters naming himself Hand of the King and deposing and arresting the previous Hand, Lord Rowan, who was also ruling the Realm as one of the king's regents - remain pretty much Kafkaesque without a king's seal and signature lending them credibility - which raises interesting possibilities for the successor of Ser Kevan as Tommen's regent. It seems clear enough that Mace Tyrell can name himself Lord Regent now - but this, too, would depend on him controlling Tommen's person. Without him he could not really do this. Really looking forward to the possibility of Cersei seizing Maegor's Holdfast and pulling a Aegon III/Viserys on Mace's Ser Marston - with Ser Robert Strong playing the role of Sandoq the Shadow.

To duly appoint royal officials - including Hands and regents - the king has to be involved in the process, even if it is just notarial formality.

By extension, this also makes it very unlikely that Littlefinger granting the Gates of the Moon to Lord Nestor Royce is legally binding to House Arryn. Lord Robert Arryn never signed or sealed said grant, and Littlefinger wasn't even Lord Robert's regent - he rules the Vale merely as Lord Protector and Robert's legal guardian (stepfather). If an adult Lord Robert Arryn - or a Lord Harrold - were to challenge this grant of Littlefinger's chances are very high that this grant is to be declared null and void.

Any thoughts on that? Do you see other implications? Or do you see other interesting little legal details?

Edited January 1 by Lord Varys

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

1. The King's Peace being the first law of the land, meaning that anyone going to war without the king's leave - be it against the king himself or some other lord, knight, etc. - was a rebel and traitor by default. That has interesting repercussions for Tywin dealing with the Reynes/Tarbecks, for instance - he was restoring the King's Peace there rather than breaking it, one assumes. At least that's how it would have been seen officially.

2. A lord cannot sit in judgment over another lord, leading to Cregan Stark becoming 'the Hand of the Uncrowned King' (a rather problematic title/status if you ask me - if there is no crowned king, said king cannot have a Hand, can he?). This is a very significant revelation considering that it greatly limits the power of the lords. We have long known that lords cannot make lords, but if lords cannot even try other lords, then lords paramount cannot (alone) conduct trials against other lords - i.e. also not against their own lordly bannermen and vassals. Any lord accused of a crime thus seems to have a right to be tried by the king or the Hand or other officials at court rather than another lord.

If you ask me, then this implies that the power a lord paramount has over another lord is limited to the whole land thing (i.e. rents or taxes) he is due to pay him for the land he holds as well as duties he owes to his liege as an official/representative of the king - for instance, the duties a lord owes to the Warden of the respective region. If a lord cannot really sit in judgment over another lord then no lord in Westeros actually rules over another lord in a meaningful way. Which is very significant.

3. It seems the king's person is more significant as a notary during his minority/regency than I and others have previously assumed. We see Cersei and Kevan having Tommen seal and sign various warrants, decrees, and grants, but FaB makes it more clear that those things are really necessary for such royal documents to be official and carry any binding legal power. This means that a stubborn minor king - while being technically obligated to follow the lead of his duly appointed regent(s) (especially if she was a parent or other close relative) - could actually sabotage the efforts of his own government if he were to refuse to actually fulfill his notary function. While Jaehaerys I, Aegon III, or Tommen could not issue laws, decrees, grants, etc. of their own they are able to actually refuse to seal and sign official documents - which gives them considerable power even during their minority. This also shows where Aegon III pretty much failed during the Regency, basically allowing his various regents to treat him as a pawn, always signing off on the decisions that were made in his name.

It also shows that Tommen's Regency government would quickly disintegrate if they no longer controlled the king's person - either because Tommen were dead or had fled the castle/city. Without a king to sign and seal official documents the Iron Throne could effectively no longer rule. Documents only signed by regents and Hands and other royal officials do not even carry remotely the same legal weight as documents sealed and signed by the king himself.

It also indicates that Kafkaesque appointments in a Regency government - like Marston Waters naming himself Hand of the King and deposing and arresting the previous Hand, Lord Rowan, who was also ruling the Realm as one of the king's regents - remain pretty much Kafkaesque without a king's seal and signature lending them credibility - which raises interesting possibilities for the successor of Ser Kevan as Tommen's regent. It seems clear enough that Mace Tyrell can name himself Lord Regent now - but this, too, would depend on him controlling Tommen's person. Without him he could not really do this. Really looking forward to the possibility of Cersei seizing Maegor's Holdfast and pulling a Aegon III/Viserys on Mace's Ser Marston - with Ser Robert Strong playing the role of Sandoq the Shadow.

To duly appoint royal officials - including Hands and regents - the king has to be involved in the process, even if it is just notarial formality.

By extension, this also makes it very unlikely that Littlefinger granting the Gates of the Moon to Lord Nestor Royce is legally binding to House Arryn. Lord Robert Arryn never signed or sealed said grant, and Littlefinger wasn't even Lord Robert's regent - he rules the Vale merely as Lord Protector and Robert's legal guardian (stepfather). If an adult Lord Robert Arryn - or a Lord Harrold - were to challenge this grant of Littlefinger's chances are very high that this grant is to be declared null and void.

You keep explaining away Tywin’s actions against the Reynes and Tarbecks as him “restoring the King’s peace”. But there is no indication that he involved the Iron Throne in his decision in any way.

In fact, your own point above about lords not being allowed to judge other lords invalidates any legitimacy Tywin’s actions may have had from a so called “legal” perspective. Because surely according to your appeal to “law”, only Aerys could have judged these rebellious lords.

So the truth is quite clear. The Lords Paramount pretty much ignored these so called laws and ruled their reams as they saw fit.

As the Starks dealt with the Skagosi, Tywin with the Reynes and Tarbecks, etc.

Share on other sites

You keep explaining away Tywin’s actions against the Reynes and Tarbecks as him “restoring the King’s peace”. But there is no indication that he involved the Iron Throne in his decision in any way.

Well, he doesn't have to. It is the duty of a lord to maintain the King's Peace in his lands - which Tytos Lannister failed to do, causing Aegon V to repeatedly intervene in the West with his own knights. The Reynes and Tarbecks were goaded into breaking the King's Peace and then Tytos and Tywin as the lords ruling the West in the king's name had a right to deal with them.

Although it seems clear that Ser Tywin and Lord Tytos would not have been allowed to actually sit in judgment over Lord Tarbeck and Lord Reyne. They had a right to be tried by the king.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In fact, your own point above about lords not being allowed to judge other lords invalidates any legitimacy Tywin’s actions may have had from a so called “legal” perspective. Because surely according to your appeal to “law”, only Aerys could have judged these rebellious lords.

The king during the rebellion there was Jaehaerys II, not Aerys II. And, yes, it seems an actual trial would have fallen to Jaehaerys II, not Lord Tytos (and definitely not Ser Tywin). But kings certainly do act through their lords in war. They are the people who are supposed to maintain and restore the King's Peace when it is broken. Aegon V and Jaehaerys II charged Lord Tytos with ruling the West in their name. Tywin eventually restored the king's authority in the West - along with that of the Lord of Casterly Rock.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So the truth is quite clear. The Lords Paramount pretty much ignored these so called laws and ruled their reams as they saw fit.

Nope. But this is not about what certain people may have done or gotten away with - it is about the legality and legal interpretation of certain issues.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As the Starks dealt with the Skagosi, Tywin with the Reynes and Tarbecks, etc.

Is there any indication that the Starks went to war against the Skagosi without the king's leave? Or that they and Ser Tywin defied the king in what they did there? No. In Tywin's case it is even clear that the Iron Throne repeatedly expected that Lord Tytos actually keep/restore the peace in the West. Aegon V was not happy that his knights had to intervene there more than once.

Also, there is no reason to assume that any civilized court views any Skagosi as 'a lord'. Only a lord can try a lord doesn't apply if there are only lords on one side of the conflict. The Skagosi should be as 'lordly' compared to noble houses of the Seven Kingdoms as the clansmen of the Mountains of the Moon (or the crannogmen or the Northern clansmen).

Breaking the King's Peace also means that you are the side breaking the peace first - i.e. injure and kill people first. Another lord can then certainly use violence in turn to bring that person to justice. Especially when it has been made clear that the king shares the view of the reacting lord in this matter.

For instance, if Dagon Greyjoy had gotten permission of King Aerys I to raid the coastlines of the North, the West, and the Reach then the Lannisters and Starks trying to put a stop to that would, technically, break the King's Peace since Lord Dagon was going to war with the king's leave. But if King Aerys I was actually approving of - or had commanded that - the Lannisters and Starks take up arms against the raiding Ironborn then they would do their best to restore the King's Peace.

That it is pretty significant to break the King's Peace has been made evident long ago in AGoT - when Ser Gregor Clegane and his men have to raid the Riverlands under false flags to ensure they are not basically outlawed and attainted by default. A lord taking up arms against anyone without the king's leave is a rebel and traitor. Ned makes that explicit when he weighs the evidence laid before the Iron Throne, coming to the conclusion that the leader of the raiders in question is indeed Ser Gregor Clegane.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

1. The King's Peace being the first law of the land, meaning that anyone going to war without the king's leave - be it against the king himself or some other lord, knight, etc. - was a rebel and traitor by default. That has interesting repercussions for Tywin dealing with the Reynes/Tarbecks, for instance - he was restoring the King's Peace there rather than breaking it, one assumes. At least that's how it would have been seen officially.

2. A lord cannot sit in judgment over another lord, leading to Cregan Stark becoming 'the Hand of the Uncrowned King' (a rather problematic title/status if you ask me - if there is no crowned king, said king cannot have a Hand, can he?). This is a very significant revelation considering that it greatly limits the power of the lords. We have long known that lords cannot make lords, but if lords cannot even try other lords, then lords paramount cannot (alone) conduct trials against other lords - i.e. also not against their own lordly bannermen and vassals. Any lord accused of a crime thus seems to have a right to be tried by the king or the Hand or other officials at court rather than another lord.

If you ask me, then this implies that the power a lord paramount has over another lord is limited to the whole land thing (i.e. rents or taxes) he is due to pay him for the land he holds as well as duties he owes to his liege as an official/representative of the king - for instance, the duties a lord owes to the Warden of the respective region. If a lord cannot really sit in judgment over another lord then no lord in Westeros actually rules over another lord in a meaningful way. Which is very significant.

That´s actually not clear.

Stark may have had the right to try Lord Mormont or a Lord Umber because they were his bannermen - while not having the right to try a Lord Lannister or a Lord Strong (not his bannermen) barring appointment as Hand.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

2. A lord cannot sit in judgment over another lord, leading to Cregan Stark becoming 'the Hand of the Uncrowned King' (a rather problematic title/status if you ask me - if there is no crowned king, said king cannot have a Hand, can he?). This is a very significant revelation considering that it greatly limits the power of the lords. We have long known that lords cannot make lords, but if lords cannot even try other lords, then lords paramount cannot (alone) conduct trials against other lords - i.e. also not against their own lordly bannermen and vassals. Any lord accused of a crime thus seems to have a right to be tried by the king or the Hand or other officials at court rather than another lord.

Lord not Lord Paramount who would by default be the kings appointed representative for the region they rule in his name and thus would be able to hold trials in the kings name, even if it is an other Lord that is on trial.

Stark may have had the right to try Lord Mormont or a Lord Umber because they were his bannermen - while not having the right to try a Lord Lannister or a Lord Strong (not his bannermen) barring appointment as Hand.

4 hours ago, direpupy said:

Lord not Lord Paramount who would by default be the kings appointed representative for the region they rule in his name and thus would be able to hold trials in the kings name, even if it is an other Lord that is on trial.

No, the sentence in FaB is quite clear and explicit:

Quote

No lord had the right to put another lord to death, so it was first necessary for Prince Aegon to make Lord Stark the King’s Hand, with full authority to act in his name.

There is no wiggle room there to invent stuff like 'a lord has the right to put one of his lords bannermen or vassals to death'.

I've misremembered insofar as the scope is concerned - a lord can certainly sit in judgment over another lord in minor cases - cases that do not involve the death sentence. One can see a lord sentencing another lord to pay a fine or perhaps even to imprisonment - physical punishment like disfigurement doesn't seem to be very likely in case of a lord.

But this means a lord cannot conduct treason or murder trials (or any other trials that involve crimes and offenses punishable by the death) against any other lord - be he his own bannerman or vassal or not. And this is highly significant.

For instance, if Lord Roose Bolton were accused of treason and/or murder then Lord Eddard Stark could not put him to death for any of those offenses. Only the king and the Hand have the right to do that.

A lord can only try and sentence non-lords - Lysa/Robert sit in judgment over Tyrion Lannister because the man is not, in fact, a lord.

That also gives us a very fine view on what being a lord means in Westeros. By rank and title you have a right to be heard by the king, not by any of your lordly peers, if you are accused of a serious offense. Lords are not really little kings who can do whatever the hell they please to other lords.

We have seen glimpses of such lordly rights and privileges as early as ACoK when Rodrik Cassel makes it clear that Roose Bolton is not going to let the Hornwood case go. Ramsay may have abducted, raped, forcefully wed, and murdered Donella Hornwood, but the marriage as such was duly made and consummated, giving House Bolton a claim to the Hornwood lands. Rodrik Cassel could not possibly rule on that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Are we to believe that Ned Stark was going to execute Jorah without the authority to do so? That's nosense.

Either he had authority as the lord paramount of the North to render such a judgment over a vassal, or he had it as the Warden of the North to exercise that power on behalf of the king, but he obviously had it.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Are we to believe that Ned Stark was going to execute Jorah without the authority to do so? That's nosense.

Either he had authority as the lord paramount of the North to render such a judgment over a vassal, or he had it as the Warden of the North to exercise that power, but he obviously had it.

Well, I didn't create that contradiction. George did by writing FaB the way he did it. He could have just had Gyldayn write that Cregan Stark became Hand for a different reason. Or he could have established that lords actually can put other lords to death.

Perhaps Jorah Mormont was no longer a lord when Ned Stark went to Bear Island, having been attainted already by a royal decree Ned asked Jon Arryn or Robert to issue so that he could deal with Jorah as he saw fit? Perhaps Ned was just trying to execute a sentence made in KL? Perhaps Ned was just going to Bear Island to investigate the case and give Jorah a fair trial - which would have involved him traveling to KL? After all, Jorah stood just accused of a crime at this point, he was not yet convicted - unless people claiming Jorah did this or that is already a conviction. Not to mention that we cannot be sure whether Ned was actually obliged to actually execute Lord Jorah for his crime there. Is death the only possible sentence if you dabble a little bit in the slave trade?

We don't know any of that, do we?

But we do know that Ned doesn't sentence Gared to death in his own right, either. He does so in the king's name. Even non-lords are not sentenced to death by the right of the lords who do make the sentence.

Could be that the Wardens have such a right. After all, if there are people who actually do represent the king in certain regions they are those people, not just mere lords. The Wardens are charged with keeping the King's Peace - Ramsay is the Lord of Winterfell in ADwD but that doesn't make him supreme commander of the armies at Winterfell. That's Roose Bolton as Warden of the North.

The Wardens seem to be just additional titles certain great lords do hold, but as we know they seem to be offices independent of lordships. Jaime could have been Warden of the East and Warden of the West as a Kingsguard. That would have allowed him, presumably, to issue binding commands to both the Lord Arryn of the Vale and the Lord Lannister of Casterly Rock. That makes it clear that the power and authority that comes with those Warden titles is greater than that of a mere lord.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, I didn't create that contradiction. George did by writing FaB the way he did it.

It's not a contradiction. As Corvo noted, if you read the statement narrowly, it doesn't say anything about what a lord paramount may do with a bannerman.

Certainly, besides Ned going for Jorah, he taught Robb that if a bannerman drew steel against him, the penalty was also death. And Ned was a stickler for the rule of law, so it's pretty obvious that the statement in FaB is intended to be narrower than your own reading.

To the men Cregan was supposed to try, he was just a lord among other lords, and had no authority in his own right to execute them, hence his needing to be given that power in some fashion.

Share on other sites

It's not a contradiction. As Corvo noted, if you read the statement narrowly, it doesn't say anything about what a lord paramount may do with a bannerman.

Lords are lords, are they not? George decided to make all his lords lords, not you or I ;-). If it was supposed to be a peer - a lord of equal or comparable rank - then Gyldayn/George should have said so.

40 minutes ago, Ran said:

Certainly, besides Ned going for Jorah, he taught Robb that if a bannerman drew steel against him, the penalty was also death. And Ned was a stickler for the rule of law, so it's pretty obvious that the statement in FaB is intended to be narrower than your own reading.

The penalty for that may be death, but as per Gyldayn a lord would not have the right to put said man to death. Robb doesn't say a lord can put down another lord, just that the penalty for such behavior is death.

Are there any other instances aside from the Jorah example that actually implies that lords can execute lords. And thinking about Jorah it is made clear that it is up to the Iron Throne to restore Jorah to Bear Island. If Robert had granted him a pardon then Ned would have been forced to suffer Lord Jorah as his bannerman again.

40 minutes ago, Ran said:

To the men Cregan was supposed to try, he was just a lord among other lords, and had no authority in his own right to execute them, hence his needing to be given that power in some fashion.

He didn't have the right to put lords to death but presumed to lecture the king on his enemies and intended to force other lords to punish Storm's End, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock but he couldn't execute men he had already imprisoned without having any legal authority aside from an army inside and outside the castle?

That's all very odd. One assumes that Cregan hadn't insisted on becoming Hand if that hadn't been *really necessary* to make the entire thing seem to have a semblance of justice.

Share on other sites

So no lord has the authority to put another lord to death. But what about landed knights? Can lords execute them without legal repercussions?

The right of pits and gallows gives a lord the right to put a man or woman to death on his/her lands. Meaning that if a (landed) knight or son/kinsman of a lord accused of a crime is going to be tried by the lord of that land. I assume there would be precedents where a, say, Hightower standing accused of murder in the lands of, say, Lord Mertyns successfully moved jurisdiction to Oldtown or Highgarden or King's Landing but the standard procedure would be that a person being accused of a crime is going to be tried where the crime was committed - or rather where the accused was arrested/accused.

How things are done with traveling folk - both highborn and commoners - is pretty difficult to figure out.

However, it seems that the standard result when you do break the King's Peace - which includes robberies and the like - is that you basically outlaw yourself. You have to prove you have the king's permission to go to war/attack people. It is not that people have to prove to you that you don't have a right to go to war/attack people. The way to prevent being outlawed is that you prevent anyone from learning that you, the seemingly just lord or honorable knight, disguise yourself and go out in the night with your cronies to rob and rape and raid the neighboring villages. Why nobody suspects you you can lead such a double life. But once credible reports about such things reach the king you are outlawed and then everybody can (and is supposed to) kill you.

This seems to be the way fugitive criminals are brought to justice. You don't really hunt them (unless they band together and become a considerable threat) you just spread the word that they have been outlawed and then local authorities/everyone can take matters in their own hands.

This also means that an outlaw - be he prince or lord or knight or common man - has basically no right to get a trial or defend himself. All he gets is a noose or some other cheap means to put him down.

One also assumes that anyone standing accused of a crime and not showing up for trial/running away is seen as guilty and thus declared an outlaw, too.

We have to differentiate, I think, between obvious offenses - i.e. bearing steel against your liege lord in your liege lord's own hall (which seems to be both a breach of guest right as well as attempted murder as well as a breach of the King's Peace) - which actually can trigger an immediate reaction/punishment or a proper trial.

Westeros doesn't really seem to grant criminals who have been caught red-handed a proper trial. Tyrion, for instance, would have likely been just killed then and there had he gutted Joffrey in the throne room rather than standing accused of poisoning him. Vice versa, one assumes a queen accused of adultery the way Naerys was only gets a proper trial if she is not caught in the act by the king himself - and this should extend to lady wives, too, of course. There is no point in a trial if your judge is also your main accuser. The catspaw attacking Bran would be another such example. Had he been a lord and lived they would have put him down all the same because the Lady Catelyn Stark of Winterfell, regent of the North in the absence of her lord husband, saw what he tried to do and was attacked by him herself.

In that sense I really don't think Robb's interaction with the Greatjon (an attempted attack on the heir of Winterfell in his father's hall) and the situation involving Cregan's trial (a poisoning plot against the king which had to be properly established in a trial) are comparable. The latter demanded a trial, the former not so much.

This gets even more evident when you add the fact that duels are a thing in this world, too. A lord certainly can kill another lord in a proper duel, never mind what the cause of such a duel is.

But until such a time as it is established that, say, Lord Hightower can execute Lord Costayne if the latter stands accused of murder and guilt has to be established in a proper trial (like it was tried to established that Unwin Peake was behind various murders during the Regency) I really don't think such things do happen.

This would also make sense considering that the essentially non-existent law enforcement infrastructure - especially of the Iron Throne - would make it so unlikely that it essentially impossible that any lord is ever tried and executed for a mundane crime which technically calls for capital punishment. Breaking the King's Peace is different, but there clearly are no authorities in this world which properly investigate you if you as lord start to murder people living in your castle. And that's exactly how the average lord would like it to be.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sending off a few ravens would deal with the problem of a lord executing another lord, I would think. I would assume the Lords Paramount send messages to the king in matters of their vassal lords disobeying the law and needing to be dealt with.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I’m curious the rule of a man being able to his wife six times, doesn’t seem to have been removed was that removed?

Also, how do you guys think the ban on the practice of the First night initially went so smoothly? I’m kinda surprised honestly given it is a custom many lords and nobles enjoyed. Indeed the lords of House Stark seem to have never thought to complain about it before the Ironthrone banned it so I don’t think they’d be extra concerned with trying enforce it. I mean it seems wrong for the Crown to seek House Starks input before the declaration.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lords are lords, are they not? George decided to make all his lords lords, not you or I ;-). If it was supposed to be a peer - a lord of equal or comparable rank - then Gyldayn/George should have said so.

George has said several times that he wishes he had introduced at least an additional rank to differentiate between the overlords and the lesser lords. SSM: "In hindsight, I probably should have added a least one more title to differentiate the great houses from their vassals. "

Lords are lords, but it seems clear that some of them have additional privileges and prerrogatives depending on their status on the grand scheme of things. And we see repeated examples of Great Lords passing judgement on their noble subjects without waiting for the king's approval.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

George has said several times that he wishes he had introduced at least an additional rank to differentiate between the overlords and the lesser lords. SSM: "In hindsight, I probably should have added a least one more title to differentiate the great houses from their vassals. "

Lords are lords, but it seems clear that some of them have additional privileges and prerrogatives depending on their status on the grand scheme of things. And we see repeated examples of Great Lords passing judgement on their noble subjects without waiting for the king's approval.

So, the likely error is in Fire and Blood, not the repeated examples of Eddard Stark and Tywin Lannister behaviour. The real problem for Cregan was not that he was a Lord, but that he was out of his turf.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So, the likely error is in Fire and Blood, not the repeated examples of Eddard Stark and Tywin Lannister behaviour. The real problem for Cregan was not that he was a Lord, but that he was out of his turf.

Gyldayn should have worded it better.

Honestly, I thought it read fine. Outside of their lands the Lords Paramount are just regular Lords, more powerful but on the same standing as their Lordly vassals . There is no reason why a Lannister, Arryn or Stark can dispense justice outside of their realms.

When Roose wants his practice of first night to be kept secret it is not due to the King but Rickard/Ned.

Share on other sites

Sending off a few ravens would deal with the problem of a lord executing another lord, I would think. I would assume the Lords Paramount send messages to the king in matters of their vassal lords disobeying the law and needing to be dealt with.

Exactly. Which is basically what I suggested what Ned may have done in the Jorah case. After all, Jorah later also writes to Robert/Varys hoping for a royal pardon - meaning the guy he has suck up to is not Eddard Stark but rather King Robert Baratheon.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m curious the rule of a man being able to his wife six times, doesn’t seem to have been removed was that removed?

No, that stands. Prior to the Rule of Six you could beat your wife as often and as savagely and with as thick a rod as you wanted, now you are down to six blows with a rod as thick as a thumb.

Although the case of Merry Meg shows us that this 'Rule of Six' did not better the lives of wives - instead, it made at least her life much crueler, because her blacksmith slowly but surely beat her to death over a longer period of time, doing it (presumably) in accord with the Rule of Six.

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also, how do you guys think the ban on the practice of the First night initially went so smoothly? I’m kinda surprised honestly given it is a custom many lords and nobles enjoyed. Indeed the lords of House Stark seem to have never thought to complain about it before the Ironthrone banned it so I don’t think they’d be extra concerned with trying enforce it. I mean it seems wrong for the Crown to seek House Starks input before the declaration.

We don't know where exactly the First Night was a thing. Gargon the Guest would have profited from the previous Ironborn rule of Harrenhal and the Riverlands, explaining why House Qoherys retained that right - we do know that Aegon I did not extend it to regions were it formally prevailed. We know it was a pretty popular thing in the North, but we have no idea how many lords practiced it in the southern kingdoms (aside from the Qoherys and the Targaryens themselves, of course).

Alysanne's arguments make it pretty obvious how people were forced to end this thing. It was adultery, plain and simple, something both the women being deflowered as well as the lady wives of the lords would have resented. Not to mention the husbands of all those poor girls and women who were subjected to this legally sanctioned rape.

And even in the North of today it don't seem the First Night is still a regular thing. Roose used the First Night as a pretext to rape a woman whose husband had married without his permission - and he just claims that the Umbers practice it, too. I don't doubt that some lords do forbidden things when they can get away with them, but the First Night is no longer a thing any lord has a right to. If they want to rape the wives of their smallfolk they have to do that (more or less) in secret because the whole thing will have consequences if the smallfolk in question has a chance to complain.

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

George has said several times that he wishes he had introduced at least an additional rank to differentiate between the overlords and the lesser lords. SSM: "In hindsight, I probably should have added a least one more title to differentiate the great houses from their vassals. "

Lords are lords, but it seems clear that some of them have additional privileges and prerrogatives depending on their status on the grand scheme of things. And we see repeated examples of Great Lords passing judgement on their noble subjects without waiting for the king's approval.

If he were caring about that all that much then FaB would have been the opportunity to establish the differences between a lord paramount and a normal lord. He did not.

At this point we don't have an example where it is confirmed that a lord put a lord to death without the king's permission. Jorah never happened, and we don't know whether Ned did have Robert's permission for this - and was thus merely executing a sentence the Iron Throne had made - or whether he was acting completely independent there.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

So, the likely error is in Fire and Blood, not the repeated examples of Eddard Stark and Tywin Lannister behaviour. The real problem for Cregan was not that he was a Lord, but that he was out of his turf.

Gyldayn should have worded it better.

But that's not what FaB says at all. If a lord cannot put a lord to death we cannot turn things around and claim this means he can put lords to death on his own land. That is pretty much exactly the opposite of what Gyldayn has said.

And as I laid out - the whole thing refers to a trial scenario. If you attacked, challenged, or a forced to restore the King's Peace as a lord then we are not in a trial-like scenario. There other rules apply. But even there lords are lords - and have the right to demand to be taken prisoner and ransomed. The average lord taking a lordly prisoner during a war cannot really put him down for 'treason', or something along those lines. That's what the king is for. Joffrey's administration ruled on all the lordly prisoners being captured after the Blackwater, not the noblemen/lords who actually captured those prisoners.

And even within the royal government there are differences between lords and princes of royal blood. Brynden Rivers, the King's Hand, could put the lordly prisoners to death he deemed to be the main culprits for the Second Blackfyre Rebellion, but he did not presume to sentence Daemon the Younger to death. That was a call the king had to make himself - just as King Aerys I later sat in judgment over Aegor Rivers.

The issue with Ser Tywin's dealings with the Reynes and Tarbecks is not so much his cruelty, etc. but rather that he presumed to act in his lord father's place. Tywin wasn't a lord at that time. As such both his lord father and King Jaehaerys II could have declared him an outlaw and a traitor.

That Jaehaerys II accepted the whole thing is likely due to the fact that Prince Aerys was Tywin's best buddy and spoke in favor of Tywin at court - and that Tywin had finally restored the King's Peace in the West.

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Honestly, I thought it read fine. Outside of their lands the Lords Paramount are just regular Lords, more powerful but on the same standing as their Lordly vassals . There is no reason why a Lannister, Arryn or Stark can dispense justice outside of their realms.

When Roose wants his practice of first night to be kept secret it is not due to the King but Rickard/Ned.

No, it is quite clear that lords only have the right of pits and gallows on their own land. That we have known since TSS. Now, it may be that they can deal with lesser offenses elsewhere, but if that were the case we don't know.

We don't know whether claiming the First Night is an offense that would have been punishable by death had Roose been caught. I don't think so. Only if it were punishable by death would it be odd that Roose were afraid of Rickard there.

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I agree that the text is fine as it is.

Lords cannot judge other lords... that are not their vassals. I think the second part goes without saying.

It is still not what's said. I mean, if you think that Lord Cregan apparently could 'legally' seize lords like Larys Strong and Corlys Velaryon (who effectively were running the Realm for young King Aegon III at the time!) then it really seems that capital punishment is the issue here. A lord cannot be executed by a mere other lord without the king signing off on that - and Aegon III clearly was neither able (being not yet crowned) nor willing to do this.

I don't think we can just assume Cregan would have had the right to execute Lord Manderly, say, if he had been one of the accused lords rather than Lord Strong.

Not to mention that the entire legal issue there is completely fucked up, too. Nobody - not even the remaining Greens (who were all turning Black thanks to the Three Widows) demanded that the murderers of King Aegon II be punished - and at court there were no Greens left. Alicent Hightower aside, they had gone over to Aegon III to a man. King Aegon III also had no intention to punish the men who had put down his evil uncle to save his ear and life and put him on the Iron Throne.

And back to the Jorah example - do we know Ned had already 'sentenced Jorah to death' before he arrived at Bear Island? I don't think so. That would mean Jorah didn't even get the right of a proper trial, wasn't heard by Lord Stark, had no right to defend himself or demand a trial-by-combat.

Ned would have heard complaints about Jorah and accusations that he was selling poachers to slavers but accusations and complaints are not yet a trial or a conviction.

Jorah refused to wait for Ned and his trial and instead decided to flee by which he admitted his guilt - a guilt Ned may also have legally established once he arrived on Bear Islands and assessed the evidence there.

In short: The Jorah situation may not have been as easy as it is retroactively been painted in AGoT. Also keep in mind that Jorah Mormont was knighted by King Robert himself. There was a personal connection there, however strenuous it may have been. If Jorah had had the opportunity to tell his sad story to Robert - how he did all he did just to make his gorgeous wife happy - I'm pretty confident that our good king Robert would have pardoned him.